HomeMy WebLinkAbout6. Pind Bend Trail Street Reconstruction Assessment Hearing, City Project #199CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: August 20, 1991
AGENDA ITEM: Pine Bend Trail Street
AGENDA SECTION:
Reconstruction Improvements, Project #199
Public Hearing
PREPARED BY: Ron Wasmund
AGENDA 5F� �¢
m
Public Works Director/Building Official
11 ii 7T 4
ATTACHMENTS: Resolution, Objection Letter
APP Q -VE �Y:
At the July 16, 1991 regular meeting Council declared cost and called
for the public hearing for Pine Bend Trail Street Reconstruction.
This project is to be assessed 100% to the property owners along Pine
Bend Trail from its junction with Highway 55 east approximately 1.5
miles to the Chicago Northwestern Railroad crossing.
The total cost of the project was $243,303.09. This cost is being
distributed over 17 parcels on a lineal front footage basis. The
owner and cost to each parcel has been provided to you for your
review.
The original public hearing held June 5, 1990 informed the property
owners that up to $330,400 would be assessed for this project. The
current and final amount to be assessed is $90,096.91 less than the
original noticed amount.
Dave Simons of S. E. H. was the project manager for this project.
Both he and I will be at the Public Hearing to provide a brief
overview of the project and answer any questions you or the public may
have regarding this item.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: MOTION TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT
ROLL FOR PINE BEND TRAIL STREET RECONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENTS OF 1990,
PROJECT NO. 199 IN THE AMOUNT OF $243,303.09
COUNCIL ACTION:
1
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 1991 -
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT ROLL
PINE BEND TRAIL STREET RECONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENTS
OF 1990
PROJECT NO. 199
WHEREAS, pursuant to notice duly given as required by law, the City
Council has met, heard and passed upon all objections to the
proposed assessment for Pine Bend Trail Street Reconstruction
Improvments, Project No. 199, and has amended such proposed
assessment as it deems just.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Rosemount, Minnesota, as follows:
(1) Such proposed assessment, in the amount of $243,303.09, a copy
of which is in Clerk's File 1991-26 is hereby accepted and
shall constitute the special assessment against the lands
named therein, and each tract of land therein is hereby found
to be benefited by the proposed improvement.
(2) Such assessments shall be as follows:
a. The assessments shall
installments extending over a
first of said installments to
for the year 1991, collectible
1992.
be payable in equal annual
period of ten (10) years, the
be payable with general taxes
with such taxes during the year
b. To the first installment shall be added interest at the
rate of eight and two tenths percent (8.2%) per annum on the
entire principal amount of the assessment from the date of
this resolution until December 31 of the year in which such
installment is payable. To each subsequent installment, when
due there shall be added interest for one year at said rate
on the unpaid principal amount of the assessment.
C. The owner of any property so assessed may at any time
prior to the certification of the assessment or the first
installment thereof to the County Auditor, pay the whole of
the principal amount of the assessment on such property with
interest accrued to the date of payment to the City Treasurer,
except that no interest shall be charged if the entire
assessment is paid within 30 days from the date hereof; and
such property owner may at any time prior to November 15 of
any year pay to the County Auditor the entire principal amount
of the assessment remaining due with interest accrued to
December 31 of the year in which said payment is made.
(3) The City Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate
copy of this assessment roll to the County Auditor to be
extended on the tax list of the County.
ADOPTED this 20th day of August, 1991.
ATTEST:
Susan M. Walsh, City Clerk
Motion by:
Voted in favor:
Voted against:
2
Vernon J. Napper, Mayor
Seconded by:
a /�.iliJ.ci ��✓ �� / G. � /117. / v�
zzel�
/s✓..��. � '-�-�' per-'% � �-��
Project Needs
July 12, 1991
6) ARMORY PROJECT:
A decision will be reached by October 31, 1991 as
to whether this project will proceed in 1992 or
not. Staff is picking up work on the project to
work with the Armory Committee and the architect
to design the project this fall.
7) INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT:
Consideration of planning for industrial
development on the east side of Rosemount (Pine
Bend area) and the University property, if we
proceed to develop concepts and take some sort of
lead role in this will require additional staff
and consultants.
8) CITY FACILITIES:
Since the completion of our space needs study we
have not taken up the first step in the
building/expansion process. We do need to proceed
and consider the first phase of that. The first
phase will require a referendum for construction
of the Fire Station and remodeling work for a
Public Works facility.
Staff and consultants work will be needed, both in
the referendum stage and in the construction
phase.
This listing covers only specific projects which will
require extensive time and, in many cases, additional
expertise beyond our existing staff capacity. Some of these
projects are confirmed and already require time and effort.
Some of these projects will proceed at our approval and
some, such as 5 & 7, may not proceed to completion, but we
are in a period of review and discussion on them.
This list of projects is current. Others may be brought
before us at any time. They are all in addition to the
ongoing projects and operational needs facing your staff
everyday in our growing community.
I would suggest that we allow for discussion on these needs
and to consider allowing me to present recommendations for
meeting those needs through consultants, full time staff,
funding those costs and determining time frames for actions
so that we may provide the service the service to the
developers on these projects and our own staff.
2
USPCI
KOCH
Project Needs
► Guide Plan Amendment follow-through
► Zoning Ordinance Amendment
► Permit document review
► Closure, post -closure, contingency plans
► Financial assurances
► Interim Use Permit Agreement
► Grading/excavation permit review
► Building permit review
► Cell design permit review
► Utility plan permit review
► Permit inspection process
► Tax increment/economic development analysis
► Spent Bauxite Disposal Facility review
► Zoning Ordinance Amendment
► Platting/PUD applicability
► Demolition Landfill permit review
► Office building expansion
► Koch waste water treatment plant expansion
► Miss-issipp-i-diver Dredge Spoil Permit review
► Old demolition landfill clean-up
► Oil sludge land treatment facility review
► Master Stormwater Plan review
► Master Grading/Excavation Plan review
► Overall Waste Management Plan review
► Superfund Remedial Action Plan review
► Hazardous Materials/Waste Management Plan review
► Public utility feasibility analysis
► Financial assurances/contingency plan
► Host community/surcharge analysis
► Koch acquisition status/land use disposition
► Recreation/Conservancy feasibility
► Permit inspection process
► Tax increment/economic development analysis
DAKOTA COUNTY WASTE -TO -ENERGY (WTE)
► Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment
► Zoning Ordinance Amendment
► Platting/PUD applicability
► Master Plan/Site Plan review
► Host Community negotiations
► Permit document review
► Contingency plans/financial assurances
► Interim Use Permit Agreement
► Stormwater/Grading plan review
► Spin-off development potential
► Public utility feasibility analysis
i
Project Needs
July 12, 1991 -
► Site access/County Road construction
► Trucking route agreement
► Grading/excavation permit review
► Building Permit review
► Permit inspection process
► Incinerator rejects disposal plan review
► Incinerator ash disposal plan review
► Tax increment/economic development analysis
► Airport search area impact analysis
RECOMP
► Detailed development review
► Facilities tour and analysis
► Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment
► Zoning Ordinance Amendment
► Platting/PUD applicability
► Host Community negotiations
► Permit document review
► Interim Use Permit Agreement
► Compost rejects disposal review
► Compost storage/marketing analysis
► Stormwater/grading plan review -
► Public utility feasibility analysis
► Financial assurances/contingency plan
► Building Permit review/authority
► Permit inspection process/authority
► U of M jurisdictional overlap
► Site access/County Road construction
► Trucking route agreement
► Tax Increment/economic development analysis
► Airport search area impact analysis
U OF M COAL ASH DISPOSAL
► Monitor site selection process
► Meetings with U of M/consultants
► Environmental review analysis
► Jurisdictional authority analysis
► Guide Plan/zoning applicability
► Site access/transportation impacts
► Host community negotiations
► Permit document review
► Financial assurances/contingency plan
► Closure/post-closure plans
► Interim Use Permit Agreement
► Building Permit review/authority
► Inspection process/authority
► Tax increment/economic development analysis
ii
Project Needs
July 12, 1991
ARMORY/COMMUNITY CENTER PROJECT
► Public Utility Feasibility Analysis/Design
► Utility Construction
► Site Grading
► Business Relocation
► Project Design
► Project Financing
► Joint Operation/Maintenance Agreement
► Project Site Plan/Building Review
► Project Permit & Inspection Process
► Project Construction Management
► Project operation/Management Staffing
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
► Development Goals & Objectives
► Meeting with U of M Consultants
► Tax Increment/Economic Development Analysis
► Public Utility Feasibility Analysis
► Environmental Review Analysis
► Jurisdictional Authority Analysis
► Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment
► Marketing/Development Assistance
—-------------- -
► Zoning Ordinance Amendment
CITY FACILITIES (Police, Fire, Public Works)
► Architect Review & Update of Process
► Preparation of Preliminary Plans for Fire Station,
Public Works Garage, Public Works Renovation
(Police Station)
► Cost Estimates/Cost Effects of Project
► Preparation for Referendum
► Hold Referendum
► Issue Bonds
► Project Design/Permit Reviews
► Project Construction/Inspection/Management
iii
1991 1992
JULY I AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MARCH APRIL
1) USPCI
Guide Plan/Ordinance. . . . . . . ► M
IUP review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ► •
Contingency/Assurances. . . . . . . . . . . ► • a
IUP Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .►
TIF/Economic Development review. . . . . . .► •
Permit reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .►
Construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ►
Inspections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .►
2) KOCH
Host Fee Negotiation. . . . . . . ►
•
Spent Bauxite Facility (SBF). .
. ►
Guide Plan Amendment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
•
•
Airport Search Impact. . . . . . . . . . . .►
•--M
SBF Ordinance. . . . . . . . .
. .►
M
Master Plan/PUD Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .►
SBF IUP review. . . . . . . . .
. ►
Permit Document Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
M
—^
SBF IUP Agreement. . . . . . .
. .►
41
Public Utility Feasibility . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . ►
SBF Host Issues. . . . . . . .
. .►
IUP Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
M
SBF Closure/Contingency. . . .
. .►
M
TIF/Economic Development Review. . . . . . .►
SBF Assurances. . . . . . . . .
. ►
Permit Reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
M
M
SBF Permit Review. . . . . . .
. .►
. . . . . .
M
Inspections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
SBF Construction . . . . . . . .
. . . .
. . . . .
. . . ►
•
SBF Inspections . . . . . . . .
. . . .
. . . . . .
. . .►
•
TIF/Economic Dev Review. . . .
. .►
•
Office Building Review. . . . .
. . . .
. . ►
M
Office Construction . . . . . .
. . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . ►
•
Office Inspections . . . . . . .
. . . .
. . . . .
. . . . . .
. . .►
•
River Dredge Review . . . . . .
. . . .
. . .►
•
Treatment Plant Expansion. . .
. . . .
. .
0M
Public Utility Feasibility. . .
.
oM
Demo Landfill Review . . . . . .
. . . .
. . . . .
. . . ►
M
Waste Mgmt Plan Review . . . . .
. . . .
. . . . .
. . . ►
•
Stormwater Mgmt Plan . . . . . .
. . . .
. . . . .
. . . . . .
. . .►
•
Excavation/Grading Plan . . . .
. . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . ►
•
Land Use Disposition . . . . . .
. . . .
. . . . .
. . . ►
•
3) DAKOTA COUNTY WTE
Host Fee Negotiation. . . . . . . ►
•
Guide Plan Amendment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . ►
Airport Search Impact. . . . . . . . . . . .►
•--M
Ordinance Amendment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . ►
Master Plan/PUD Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .►
a
Permit Document Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . ►
—^
Contingency/Assurances. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . ►
•
Public Utility Feasibility . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . ►
a
IUP Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . ►
Ash/Rejects Disposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .►
—M
TIF/Economic Development Review. . . . . . .►
'
Permit Reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .►
M
Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . ►
Inspections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .►
1991 1992
JULY AUG SEPT I OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MARCH APRIL
4) RECOMP
Development Review. . . . . . . .
. . . ►
Facilities Tour/Analysis. . . . . . .
. . . . . . .►—•=�
Host Fee Negotiation . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . ►
•M
Guide Plan Amendment . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . .►
'--'
Ordinance Amendment . ii. . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.► •--=^
Platting/PUD Applicability. . . . . .
. . . ►
U of M Jurisdictional Issues. . . . .
. . . ►
TIF/Economic Development Review. . . .
. . .► •
Airport Search Impact . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .►
Public Utility Feasibility . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . ►
' --x
Permit Document Review . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . .►
'--"
Contingency/Assurances. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . .►
► •_---,
Compost Rejects Disposal . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Compost Markets/Storage
. . . .► •.
IUP Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
.. . .
Permit Reviews ......................................................
Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "►
.
Inspections . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5) AIRPORT
Final Selection Process. . . . . .► •
Development Restrictions. . . . . ► •
Guide Plan Impacts. . . . . . . . ► •
Planning Grant. . .
Airport Development Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Transportation Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Environmental Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Legal Issues Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Legislative Inititative/Lobby . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6) GUIDE PLAN
Policy Consensus. . . . . . . . . ► '---^`
Plan Elements. . . . . . . . . . .► '
Major Project Impacts. . . . . . .►
Airport Impacts. . . . . .► • '"
Koch Disposition. . . . . . . . . ►
Waste Management Consensus. . . . ►—T
U of M Disposition. . . . . . . ►
Public Utility Locations. . . . . ► '—
Guide Plan Draft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .►
Guide Plan Graphics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .► .----
Met Council Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FinalPlan...................................................................►►►
7) U OF N ASH
U of M Feasibility Study. . . . . ► •
U of M Meetings. .
Jurisdictional Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Airport Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Guide Plan Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Host Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1991
1992
JULY AUG SEPT I OCT NOV I DEC JAN FEB MARCH I APRIL
8) ARMORY PROJECT
Public Utilities
Feasibility/Design. . . . . •. . . . . . 0-
.►M
a—M
Preparation of Preliminary Plans for
Utility Construction. . . . . •. . . . . .•. . .
. . •. . .
. •.
•.
•.
•.
•.
•. ►—
Project Financing. . . . . . .•. . . . . .•. . .
. . •
.•.
•.
•.
•.
►
• — M
Project Design. . . . . . . . •. . . . . . b,
. . • . . . .•. . .
• . .
•=
Issue Debt. . . . . . . . . . • . . . • . .
. . .•. . . . . • . .
. .•. . .
• . . . .•. . . • . .•. • .0 -
Site Grading. . . . . . . . . •. . . . . .• . .
. .•.
. .
.•.
•. . .
. . •. . .
•. . .
. . •. . . . . ►
Project Site Plan/Bldg Review.•. . . . . .• . .
. . .•. . .
•
.•.
►
•
Permit Review. . . . . . . . .•. . . . . .•. . .
. . • . .
. . .•.
•.
►
Construction. . . . . . . . . • . . . .
.•.
.•.
•.
•.
•.
•. ►
Construction Inspection. . . .•. . . . . .•. . .
.
.•.
.•.
. . . .
. . .. . .
. . • . . . . .►
Joint Operation/Maintenance Agreement. . .•.
.•.
.•.
►
•
Facility Staffing. . . . .•. . . . . .•.
.•.
.•.
.•.
. . . . .•. . . .
Operation/Maintenance. . . . .•. . . . . .•.
.•.
.•.
.•.
. . . .•. . . . . .
9) INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
(East Side)
Goals/Objectives Development. •. . ►
Meeting with U of M Consultants. . . . . ► •
Tax Increment/Development Analysis. . . . •. ► --a
Jurisdictional Authority Analysis. . . . . . . . ► •—=
Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment. . . . •. . . . . •. ► •
Zoning Ordinance Amendment. . •. . . . . . . . •. •. •. ►
Marketing/Development Assistance. . . . . •. . •. •. •. ►
Public Utilities Service Analysis. . . . .•. . . . . • . . . . .► •
Public Utilities Design/Construction. . . •. . . . . •. . . . •. •. •. .
10) CITY FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION
Architect Review/Update on Process. . . .
.►M
Preparation of Preliminary Plans for
P/W, Fire, Police. . . . . • . . . . . • . .
. . .•. ►
x
Development of Cost Estimates.•. . . . . .•.
•.
.► M
Referendum Decision. . . . . .•. . . . . .•.
• .•.
►
• •-^
Referendum Preparation. . . . • . . . . . •
.•. . . . . • . .
. . .•.
.•. .►—• M
Hold Referendum. . . . . . . .•. . . . . .•. . .
. . • . . . .•. . .
• . .
. .•. . . • . . . .•. . . • .►—a
Issue Debt. . . . . . . . . . • . . . • . .
. . .•. . . . . • . .
. .•. . .
• . . . .•. . . • . .•. • .0 -
Project(s) Design. . . . . . .•. . . . . .•. . .
. .•.
. .
. . .•. . . . .•. .•. ►M
Project(s) Permit. . . . . . .•. . . . . .•.
.•.
•. .•. .•. ►—:
Construction. . . . . . . . . 9 . .
.•. 0 . .
. .•. . .
• . . . . .. .•. ►'►
RESOURCE
STRATEGIES
CORPORATION
6600 CITY WEST PARKWAY
SUITE 240
MINNEAPOLIS, MN
55344
612/942-8010
FAX 612/942-7464
August 14, 1991
Mr. Stephan Jilk, City Administrator
City of Rosemount
2875 - 145th Street West
Rosemount, MN 55068
RE: KOCH SPENT BAUXITE DISPOSAL FACILITY
Dear
In response to your request, Resource Strategies is pleased to submit the following
summary of tasks to complete the interim use permitting process for the Koch Refining
Company Spent Bauxite Disposal Facility. Also included is an estimate of time involvement
by Resource Strategies in providing assistance to City staff in each task.
1. Host Community Rationale
Assist the City in defining, rationalizing and establishing a host community
fee ("waste abatement, 'waste disposal," "environmental management
fund', etc.).
(4-6hours)
2. Permit Application Review
Assist the City in the review of the permit application and draft MPCA
permit document.
(6 - 8 hours)
3. Interim Use Permit Process
Outline terms and conditions for consideration of issuing the interim use
permit, outline strategies for the conditions/rationale/timetable for the
recycling feasibility of spent bauxite; assist in the preparation of the final
permit agreement, assist staff in the presentation of the interim use permit
at one Planning Commission meeting; assist staff in the presentation of
the interim use permit/agreement at the City Council public hearing.
(16 - 18 hours)
Mr. Stephan Jilk
August 14, 1991
Page Two
4. Meeting
Attend staff, consultant and developer meetings as requested.
Resource Strategies will submit detailed monthly invoices, outlining services rendered and
expenses incurred, based upon the following rates:
Principal $85.00/hour
Secretarial $35.00/hour
Mileage $ .26/mile
Expenses Actual
We appreciate this opportunity and look forward to continuing our involvement on this
project.
Sincerely,
Dean R. Johnson
Principal
DRJ/sah
RESOURCE
STRATEGIES
CORPORATION
6600 CITY WEST PARKWAY
SUITE 240
MINNEAPOLIS, MN
55344
612/942-8010
FAX 612/942-7464
August 9, 1991
Mr. Stephan Jilk, City Administrator
City of Rosemount
2875 -145th Street West
Rosemount, MN 55068
RE: DSPC/ INDUSTRIAL CONTAINMENT FACILITY
Dear W---J-ilk:
In response to your request, Resource Strategies is pleased to submit the following
summary of tasks to complete the land use/interim use permitting process for USPCI. Also
included is an estimate of time involvement by Resource Strategies. It is understood that
we would not take a lead role in any of the tasks, with exception of completing required
amendments to the comprehensive sewer plan.
1. Comprehensive Sewer Plan Amendment
- Discuss formal requirements with Met Council and MWCC staff; meet with
City staff and engineering consultant; prepare district map and sewer
staging elements; complete transmittals to Met Council, MWCC and
Planning Commission/City Council (no formal actions required by
agencies or City).
(10 - 12 hours)
2. Complete Comprehensive Guide Plan Process
Assist staff in the recommendations and presentations of the guide plan
amendment at Planning Commission and City Council meetings (no further
public hearings required).
(6-8hours)
3. Complete Zoning Ordinance Amendment Process
Assist staff in the recommendations and presentations of the zoning
ordinance amendment at one Planning Commission meeting and a City
Council public hearing.
( 5 - 6 hours)
Mr. Stephan Jilk
August 9, 1991
Page Two
4. Master Permit Application Review
Assist staff in the review of the Master Permit application and draft MPCA
permit document.
(8- 10 hours)
5. interim Use Permit Process
Outline terms and conditions for consideration of issuing the interim use
permit, assist staff in preparation of this interim use permit agreement,
assist staff in the site plan review, recommendations and presentation of
interim use permit at one Planning Commission meeting; assist staff in the
presentation of the interim use permit/agreement at the City Council
public hearing.
(12 - 15 hours)
6. Meetings
Attend staff, consultant and developer meetings as requested.
Resource Strategies will submit detailed monthly invoices, outlining services rendered and
expenses incurred, based upon the following rates:
Principal $85.00/hour
Secretarial $35.00/hour
Mileage $ .26/mile
Expenses Actual
We appreciate this opportunity and look forward to continuing our involvement on this
project.
Sincerely,
_eAp _
Dean R. Johnson
Principal
DRJ/sah
RESOURCE ,august 1, 1991
STRATEGIES
CORPORATION
-'N Mr. Stephan Jilk, City Administrator
T P
6600 CITY WEST PARKWAY
Ms. Lisa Freese, Director of Planning
SUITE
City of Rosemount
MINNEAPOLIS, MN
2875 - 145th Street West
55344
Rosemount, A%' 55068
612/942-8010
FAX 612/942-7464
RE: CONSULTING SERVICES PROPOSAL
Deark and Ms.50drse:
Resource Strategies Corporation is pleased to submit the following proposal for consulting services
in connection with the development review and permitting of the Dakota County Waste -To -Energy
facility (DC WTE). It is our understanding that Resource Strategies will supplement staff lead roles
in most areas of the project development. Below is a summary of work tasks and an estimate of
hours per task.
Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment/Airport Search Area Land Use Change
Assume a lead role in the EIS and permit document review in preparation of the guide plan
amendment/airport land use change required by the Metropolitan Council; assist city staff
in planning commission and city council meetings; prepare and submit final documents
to Metropolitan Council.
(40 - 50 hours)
2. Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Supplement city staff efforts in determining appropriate zoning approach for the DC WTE
(i.e. waste management vs. public zoning); assist city staff in specific zoning text
amendments; prepare white papers in advance of or in supplement to city staff reports.
( 12 - 15 hours)
3. Rejects/Ash Disposal Disposition
Assume a lead or supplement city staff efforts in determining the status of rejects and ash
disposal prior to completion of the guide plan amendment or any public meetings on DC
WTE; permit document review, agency contacts and developer contacts; summary
reports/white papers.
(12 - 15 hours)
Mr. Stephen Jilk
Ms. Lisa Freese
August 1, 1991
Page Two
4. Development Plan/Platting/PUD Process
Supplement city staff in the review and procedures for approval of the facility proposal.
(6 - 10 hours)
5. Public Utility Feasibility
Supplement city staff in the review and coordinate efforts leading to the potential for public
water and/or sewer systems for DC WTE and/or other development potential; subsequent
actions/permits.
(8 - 12 hours)
6. Interim Use Permit
Supplement city staff in preparation of all terms, commitments, and conditions for the
interim use permit agreement.
(12 - 15 hours)
7. Meetings
Attendance in city staff and consultant meetings, developer meetings, agency meetings
and other meetings, as directed over a three to four month period.
(40 - 50 hours)
8. Additional Services
Resource Strategies is available to provide additional services, as requested, in the areas
of detailed site plan review, site access/road improvements, haul route designation, spin-
off development, host community negotiations, tax increment/economic development,
project coordination and feasibility studies.
Dean Johnson will be the primary participant on behalf of the firm; however, Jeff Connell's
experience will be utilized in several key areas. The hours represented herein are based upon
estimates of time involved in each category. Resource Strategies' billing rates are as follows:
Principal
$85.00/hour
Secretarial
$35.00/hour
Mileage
$ .261mile
Expenses
Actual
Mr. Stephen Jilk
Ms. Lisa Freese
August 1, 1991
Page Three
Monthly invoices will include a detailed description of the services rendered and direct expenses
incurred.
We appreciate the opportunity to submit this proposal and will look forward to working with the city
on this project.
Sincerely,
Dean R. Johnson, Principal
DRJ/sah
ti
OBJECTION TO SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FOR
PINE BEND TRAIL STREET RECONSTRUCTION
IMPROVEMENT OF 1990
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT PROJECT NO. 199
T0: The Honorable Members of the City Council of the City of
Rosemount
DPC Industries, Inc., formerly known as Dixie Petro -Chem.,
Inc., taxpayer and owner of property identified as PID 14--01800-
081-88 (°DPC") hereby objects to the proposed special assessment
on said properties for City of Rosemount Project No. 199 as
follows:
1. The assessment violates article 10 Section 1 of the
Minnesota Constitution which provides that
The legislature may authorize municipal
corporations to levy and collect assessments
for local improvements upon property
benefitted thereby without regard to cash
valuation.
The current assessment calculation method which uses linear
frontage and not area served is not based on the benefit to the
property involved.
2. The assessment violates Minn. Stat. § 429.051 which
provides:
The cost of any improvement, or any part
thereof, may be assessed upon property
benefitted by the improvement, based upon the
benefits received, whether or not the
property abuts on the improvement. . . .
The current assessment calculation method which uses linear
frontage and not area served does not take into account the
benefits received by the affected properties.
r . J
3• On information and belief, rspresentatives of the City
Of Rosemount represented to DPC in 1988 that the special
assessment for Project No. 199 would be based on area served and
not on linear frontage to the Project, Because DPC acted in
reliance on thecae representations, the City of Rosemount is
estopped Lrom assessing the project based on linear frontage.
Respectfully submitted,
Ronald R. Ciora
President
DPC Industries, Inc,
Box 16290
Houston, TX 77222
bMG055F2 . WP5
ft- 70
j f --,**--* >—
OCA T-1 ON MAP
PC-
CHLORW
PACKACINGFAa
1.44, &,.*A
y S , I .
;r. n
*M—o
le
J
a �Y
i 1
ho
f
—jl
Ott Ii�
If — -- --- _140 nl SynEET
*M—o
"EXUI11IT A"
I
Project
Name:
Pine Lend Trail
Street Improvements
Project
u:
199
Page No. 1
Contract act
:t:
90-1
Hsg ssmenL
Hearing:
E uy"_= 1 SLh
Assessment
D"e De Fore:
02/12/91
Year_. Spread:
Ilt
Cost per
Foot:
a l8. r'll
1
ZINE L NLMDE12
PLAIT
LOT EtL
LAST NAME
FIRST NAME
ADDRESS
CITY
STI!
ZIP
UNITS
iL
TOTAL
1 01700
010 62
FARMERS
[:ELLIRVIL
SALEM
LAKE DRIVE
LONG GROVE
IL
60047
1500
$29,672.40
1 01700
010 i 7 to
INDUSTRIES
LF
'SOLEM
LAKE DRIVE
LONG GROVE
IL
60047
520
$9, 765.60
i 01000
010 50
REFINERY CO.
1`:GCI 1
BOX
2256
N I TCH I TR
KS
67201
540
$10,141.20
1 01 000
010 57
REFINERY CO.
I a:u::Ll
BOX
2256
W I TCH I TA
KS
67201
040
$15,775.20
I 01000
010 77
REFINERY CO.
ruc I
BOX
2256
W I TCLI I TO
KS
67201
235
$4,413.30
01000
010 81
REFINERY CO.
KOC I
BOX
2256
W I TCN I TR
KS
67201
1430
*26,0S5.40
I 01000
010 03
REFINERY CO.
Kt CI I
BOX
2256
1•4 Il C1 I I T f I
KS
6720 1
550
$10,329.00
I 01800
010 Do
VOL1 ERT
MEL V l t I F.
1410
21► t L.h AVE
NEW RICHMOND
W I
54017
106
9 1 , y'_iLI.60
I 01000
010 08
PETRO -CHEM
E1 I X I E-
BOX
1.6.90
HOLT'_• I i iN
TX
77222
2347
$44,076.66
I 01800
010 10 87
BREEN
H 1F't; WTT
2475
VERSAILLES LH
GASTON I A
LIF:
28054
60
$1 , 126.01)
1 I_t 1 St00
020 07
PAGE
I IE:IIL
4504
64th 51' IJ
1.11 HH1__ APf:tL I S
11N
55424
320
$6,009.60
I 01000
O 15 00
PARTNERSHIP
W0LHIA 1
42.::0
PINE BEND TRAIL
RO EMOUNT
1.1N
55068
5.90
$9,953.40
I 0199)
010 04
REFINERY CO.
MCI I
L1OX
2256
1-11 Ti_ 1 i I Ti i
KS
67201
950
$17,13,11.00
I 01':1]0
(III) FG,
fISTELFORD
1.1.11.
1200
"NY 13 W
EJURN` MLLE
HN
55337
1100
$20,650.00
i 0;;'I CO
010 20
HSTELFORD
M.G.
1200
HWY QW
BURN`:VILLE
MN
55337
1100
$22,160.41)
I I:12000
010 32
REFINERY CO.
KCl
BOX
2256
WITCLIITH
KS
67201
110
52,065.00
I t Q000
030 32
REFINERY CO.
KOM I
BOX
2256
W I 1 CH I TH
KS
67201
557
$10,460.65
TOTAL
$243,303.09
(Pity of Rosemount
PHONE (612) 423-4411 2875 - 145th Street West, Rosemount, Minnesota
FAX (612) 423-5203 Mailing Address.
P. O Box 510, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068-0510
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILED AND POSTED HEARING NOTICE
NOTICE OF HEARING ON ASSESSMENTS
PINE BEND TRAIL STREET RECONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENTS OF
PROJECT 199
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
COUNTY OF DAKOTA )SS.
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT )
Susan M. Walsh, being first duly sworn, deposes and says:
MAYOR
Vernon Napper
COUNCILMEMBERS
Sheila Klassen
John Oxborough
Harry Willcox
Dennis Wippermann
ADMINISTRATOR
1990 Stephan Jilk
I am a United States Citizen and the duly qualified Clerk of the
City of Rosemount, Minnesota.
On August 2, 1991, acting on behalf of the said City, I posted at
the City Hall, 2875 145th Street West, and deposited in the United
States Post Office of Rosemount, Minnesota, copies of the attached
notice of public hearing regarding Pine Bend Trail Street
Reconstruction Improvements, Project #199, enclosed in sealed
envelopes, with postage thereon fully prepaid, addressed to the
persons listed on the attached listings at the addresses listed
with their names.
There is delivery service by United States Mail between the place
of mailing and the places so addressed.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this
S;dsan M. Wa�l.sh
City Clerk
City of Rosemount
Dakota County, Minnesota
9 h a' day of August, 1991.
tsCINDY DORNIDEN
-
� NOTARY PUBLW MI.DAKOTA COUNOtar P tic
My Comm. bmires Aug. 25, 1995
v
6very111-179S (Pomts2q J�osevnouvil..
TO:
eiO
T `O�E�t()16�ic`�TN'F
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
P O BOX 510
2875 -145TH ST W
ROSEMOUNT. MINNESOTA 55068
612-423-4411
NOTICE OF HEARING ON ASSESSMENTS
FOR PINE BEND TRAIL STREET RECONSTRUCTION
IMPROVEMENTS OF 1990
CITY PROJECT NO. 199
TIME AND PLACE
Notice is hereby given that the City
GENERAL NATURE OF
Council of the City of Rosemount,
IMPROVEMENTS:
Minnesota, will meet in the City Hall in
the City of Rosemount, 2875 145th Street
West, Rosemount, Minnesota, on the 20th day
of August, 1991 at 8:00 p.m., or as soon
thereafter as possible, to consider
objections to the proposed assessments for
Pine Bend Trail Street Reconstruction of
1990, City Project No. 199, which provides
for subgrade correction and a bituminous
overlay on a 1.5 mile segment of Pine Bend
Trail from S.T.H. 55 to the RR Crossing
adjacent to C.F. Industries, heretofore
ordered by the City Council.
ASSESSMENT ROLL
The proposed assessment roll is on file
OPEN TO INSPECTION:
with the City Clerk and open to public
inspection.
AREA PROPOSED The area proposed to be assessed consists
TO BE ASSESSED: of every lot, piece or parcel of land
benefited by said improvements, which has
been ordered made and is as follows:
generally be all that area generally
described adjacent to Pine Bend Trail
located in the south half of Section 18 and
also in the north halves of Sections 19 and
20, Township 115, Range 18, Dakota County,
Minnesota. The westerly project terminus
is located at the intersection of Pine Bend
Trail and S.T.H. 55 in the southwest quarter
of Section 18. From this point, the project
extends approximately 1.5 miles easterly and
terminates at the Chicago and North Western
Railroad crossing located adjacent to C.F.
Industries in the north half of Section 20.
TOTAL AMOUNT The total amount proposed to be assessed
OF PROPOSED: is $243,303.09.
WRITTEN OR ORAL Written or oral objections will be
OBJECTIONS: considered at the hearing.
RIGHT OF APPEAL: An owner of property to be assessed may
appeal the assessment to the district court
of Dakota County pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes, Section 429.081 by serving notice
of the appeal upon the Mayor or Clerk of the
City within 30 days after the adoption of
the assessment and filing such notice with
the district court within ten days after
service upon the Mayor or Clerk.
LIMITATION ON No appeal may be taken as to the amount of
APPEAL: any assessment adopted by the City Council
unless a written objection signed by the
affected property owner is filed with the
Clerk prior to the assessment hearing or
presented to the presiding officer at the
hearing. All objections to the assessments
not received at the assessment hearing in
the manner prescribed by Minnesota Statutes,
Section 429.061 are waived, unless the
failure to object at the assessment hearing
is due to a reasonable cause.
DEFERMENT OF Under the provisions of Minnesota
ASSESSMENTS: Statutes, Sections 435.193 to 435.195, the
City may, at its discretion, defer the
payment of assessments for any homestead
property owned by a person 65 years of age
or older for whom it would be a hardship to
make the payments. However, the City has
elected not to establish any deferment
procedure pursuant to those Sections.
SPECIFIC AMOUNT TO The amount to be specifically assessed
BE ASSESSED against your particular lot, piece of
parcel of land is shown on the attached
Exhibit A.
PREPAYMENT: You may prepay the entire assessment to the
Treasurer of the City until the assessment
roll is certified to the County Auditor;
after certification to the County Auditor,
prepayments of the entire amount remaining
due may be made to the County Auditor at any
time prior to November 15 in the year this
assessment is adopted.
2
NO PARTIAL The City Council has not authorized the
partial prepayment of assessments prior to
certification of the assessment or the first
installment thereof to the County Auditor.
PREPAYMENT WITHOUT No interest shall be charged if the entire
INTEREST, OR WITH assessment is paid within 30 days from
INTEREST TO END OF the adoption of the assessment roll. At
YEAR: any time prior to November 15 of any year
following the year the assessment is
certified, the owner may prepay to the
County Treasurer the whole assessment
remaining due with interest accrued to
December 31 of the year in which the
prepayment is made.
INTEREST RATE: If the assessment is not prepaid within 30
days from the adoption of the assessment
roll, interest will accrue on the assessment
at the rate of 8.2%. Interest accrues from
the date to be specified in the resolution
levying the assessment, but not earlier than
the date of such resolution. Assessments
shall be payable in equal annual
installments extending over a period of up
to 10 years, the first of the installments
to be payable with general taxes for the
year 1991, collectible with such taxes
during the year 1992.
Dated this 16th day of July, 1991.
BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL.
3
Susan M. Walsh
City Clerk
City of Rosemount
Dakota County, MN
"EXHIBIT A"
ProjecL Name: Pine Bend Trail Street Improvements
ProjecL 8: 139 Page No. 1
Cm`b-aot u: 90-1. '
RssessmenL Hearing: Huy,^`| 5Lh
Assessment Due BeFore: 02/12/91
Years Spread: 10
"
"
�
Cost per Fook i'l8'7n »
PLAT
LUT
BL
LAST NAME
FIRST NAME
ADDRESS
CITY
STH ZIP
UNITS
TOTAL
^ 01700
010
62
FARMERS
CEH|0)L
SALEM LAKE DRIVE
LONG GROVE
IL
60047
1580
$29,672'40
01700
010
70
INDUSTRIES
C�
SALEM LAKE DRIVE
LONG GROVE
IL
60047
520
$9,765,60
01800
010
50
REFINERY CO3
[0C||
BOX 2256
WITCHlTR
KS
67201
540
t1O,141,20
01800
010
57
REFINERY CO.
|(0C>|
BOX 2256
W[TCHITR
KS
67301
848
$15,775'20
01800
010
77
P[FlMEQY CO.
KOC/|
BOX 2256
HlTCHlTH
KS
67201
235
t4,413,30
01800
010
81
REFINERY CO'
[OCH
BOX 2256
W[TCHlTH
KS
67201
143O
$26,855.40
01800
010
83
REFINERY CO'
[0C||
BOX 2256
W[TCHlTR
KS
67201
550
$10,329'00
01800
010
80
VOLKEAT
H[LV(|< F.
1418 21OLh AVE
NEN RICHMOND
WI
54017
106
$1,990.68
01800
018
88
PETRO -CHEM
|/[X![-
BOX 16290
1-101-15TON
TX
77222
2347
$44,076.66 `-
U|800
010
07
BQEEH
H[IPI �,|[!ET
3475 VERSAILLES LN
GHSTONIR
NC
28054
60
$1,126,80
U1800
020
87
PAGE
HEllL
4504 60|` ST W
MINNEAPOLIS
MN
55424
320
$6,009.60
01800
015
88
PARTNERSHIP
HULB01
4230 PINE REHO TRAIL
ROSEM0UNT
MN
55068
530
$9,953'40
01900
010
04
REFINERY CO'
|DC||
BOX 2256
WlTCHlTH
K5
67201
950
$17,841.00
O1900
0|O
07
HSTELFOAD
M.G.
1200 HWY 13 W
BUANSVlLLE
MN
55997
1100
$20,658'00
02000
010
28
0STELFOkD
H.C'
1200 HWY 13 WRUPNSVILLE
MN
55337
1180
$22,160'40
02000
010
32
REFINERY CO,
[UC||
BOX 2256 '
WlTCH{TR
K5
67201
110
$2,065.8O
02000
030
32
REFINERY CO'
[UCU
BOX 2256
Wl7CHITR
KS
67201
557
$10,468'65
TOTAL
$243,303'09
,
"
�
Farmington Independent
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
Diane Berge, being duly sworn, on oath says that she is an authoriz-
ed agent and employee of the publisher of the newspaper, known as
The Farmington Independent, and has full knowledge of the facts which
are stated below:
(A) The newspaper has complied with all of the requirements con-
stituting qualification as a legal newspaper, as provided by Minnesota
Statutes 331A.02, 331A.07 and other applicable laws, as amended.
(B) The printed &3±- C-5-
which
t
which is attached, was cut from the columns of said newspaper, and
was printed and published once each week for (4WL)
successive weeks; it was first published on Thursday, the S'" - day
of _l\ , 19'1— and was thereafter printed and
published on every Thursday, to and including Thursday, the
- day of 19 91 ; and printed below is a
copy of the lower case alphabet from A to Z, both inclusive, which is
hereby acknowledged as being the size and kind of type used in the
composition and publication of the notice:
abcdefghijklmnopgrstumxyz
By:
Title: Administrator for the Publisher.
Subscribed and sworn to before me on this 3 day of ! /G/,
Su
Notary Public
AFFIDAVIT
you paaoosw���
00:12:08 LISA M. SHERVHEIM
NOTARY PUBLIC -MINNESOTA
lie DAKOTA COUNTY
My Commission Expires Nov. 19, 1992
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
NOTICE OF HEARNG ON
ASSESSMENTS
FOR PINE BEND TRAIL STREET
RECONSTRUCTION
IMPROVEMENTS OF 1990, CITY
PROJECT NO. 199
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
TIME AND PLACE GENERAL NATURE
OF IMPROVEMENTS:
Notice is hereby given that the City
Council- of the City of Rosemount,
Minnesota, will meet in the City Hall in the
City of Rosemount, 2875 145th Street West,
Rosemount Minnesota on the 20thdayof
August, 1§91 at 8:0b p.m: or as soon
thereafter as possible, to consider objections
to the proposed assessments for Pine Bend
Trail Street Reconstruction of 1990, City
Project No. 199, which provides for
subgrade correction and a bituminous
overlay on a 1.5 mile segment of Pine Bend
Tail from S.T.H. 55 to the RR Crossing
adjacent to C.F. Industries, heretofore
ordered by the City Council.
ASSESSMENT ROLL OPEN TO
INSPECTION:
The proposed assessment roll is on file
with the City Clerk and open to public
inspection.
AREA PROPOSED TO BE ASSESSED:
The area pproposed to be assessed consists
of every lot, tete or parcel of land
benefited by said improvements, which has
been ordered made and is as follows:
generally be all that area generally described
adjacent to Pine Bend Trail located in the
south half of Section 18 and also in the
north halves of Sections 19 and 20,
Township 115, Range 18, Dakota County,
Minnesota. The westerly project terminus is
located at the intersection of Pine Bend
Trail and S.T.H. 55 in the southwest quarter
of section 18. From this point, the project
extends approximately 1 .5 miles easterly
and terminates at the Chicago and North
Western Railroad crossing located adjacent
to C.F. Industries in the north of Section 20.
TOTAL AMOUNT OF PROPOSED:
The total amount proposed to be assessed
is $243,303.09
WRITTEN OR ORAL OBJECTIONS:
Written or oral objections will be
considered at the hearing.
RIGHT OF APPEAL:
An owner of property to be assessed may
appeal the assessment to the district court of
Dakota County pursuant to Minnesota
Statues, Section 429.081 by serving notice
of the appeal upon the Mayor or Clerk of the
City within 30 days after the adoption of the
assessment and filing such notice with the
district court within ten days after service
upon the Mayor or Clerk.
LIMITATION ON APPEAL:
No appeal may be taken as to the amount
of any assessment adopted by the City
Council unless a written objection signed by
the affected property owner is filed with the
Clerk prior to the assessment hearing or
presented to the presiding officer at the
hearing. All objections to the assessments
not received at the assessment hearing in the
manner prescribed by Minnesota Statutes,
Section 429.061 are waived, unless the
failure to object to the assessment hearing is
due to a reasonable cause.
DEFERMENT OF ASSESSMENTS:
Under the provisions --of Minnesota
Statues, Sections 435.193, die -'City may, at
its. discretion, -defer the -payment of
assessments for any -}homestead property
owned by a person 65,years of age or older
for whom it would be a hardship to make
the payments. However, the City has elected
(not to establish any deferment procedure
pursuant to those Sections.
Dated this 16th day of July, 1991.
BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL.